(nb: I lived in Manila in the 70s and was there when Marcos declared Martial Law).
People are asking why Filipino voters would elect another Marcos as President after the dictatorship of the 70s and 80s. Its important to understand what Filipino politics is and is not.
Presidential politics in the Philippines is not, largely, ideological. When Marcos was elected in the 60s, there were nominally two Parties; a center-left Party (Liberal) and a Center-right Party (Nationalista). However, most political movements are tribal and somewhat geographic. In the 1980s, Marcos formed the New Society Movement (a Party oriented around him) and he was opposed by Laban (a Party opposed to Marcos but also built around Corey Aquino). Since the 1986 revolution, Presidential candidates have generally built Parties around their own campaigns, rather than being the nominee of an "established" Party.
The obvious question is: why would people rally to a Party built around Bongbong Marcos? (nb: Filipinos love nicknames; Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has been publicly known as "Bongbong" since he was in his 20s.) The answer is that the tribalism I mentioned before is built on geography and good old fashioned patronage. Most Americans don't realize the Imelda Marcos (she of the "shoe collection" and various criminal convictions) was subsequently elected to Philippines House of Representatives for three terms. Politicians in the Philippines are adept (as any machine Pol would be) at obtaining and dispensing public goods to their local voters (as opposed to general policies that would benefit everyone). While Imelda built a cosmopolitan reputation as first Lady, her origins were from a rural Province (Ilocos Norte) where she caught Ferdinand Marcos' eye as a beauty contest winner. Voters in IN, however poor they may be, loved her success and benefit from her largesse. Bongbong has been able to build the same support network. Marcos Snr. appointed him as Governor of Ilocos Norte, allowing him to build his own patronage network, which led to his election as a House member and Senator (Senators in the Philippines are elected nationally, but their campaigns are built on strong local support). By comparison, Rodrigo Duterte had a 22 year run as Mayor of Davao City (notwithstanding the title, Davao contains more than 900 sq miles of territory), and used that as his political base.
Notwithstanding Bongbong's desire to "restore his father's legacy", I don't see him as a Trump wannabe...anymore than I saw Déterte as one. Again, there isn't a lot of ideology in this election; its largely a matter of political power. The current Philippines Constitution limits Presidents to ONE six year term, and I don't have the sense that he has the ability to cajole the Military to backing an overthrow of the existing political system.
One additional point: up through the Marcos Snr. days, elections in the Philippines had an ugly reputation for fraud, from bribery to ballot stuffing to outright muder of opposing candidates' voters. I didn't see that in the Duterte election and I'm not seeing it in this one. For better or worse, this is who the voters picked.